Senior White House adviser David Plouffe on Tuesday accused wealthy Mitt Romney supporters of trying to “purchase the White House,” one day after the presumptive GOP nominee announced a $106 million June fundraising haul that stunned the Obama campaign.“You’ve got a few very wealthy people lining up trying to purchase the White House for Mr. Romney,” said Plouffe on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” “We’re going to have to have everybody out there who wants the president to continue to a second term to step up and help the campaign.”

Romney and the RNC had a good month in June, but I guarantee you this: When the June FEC reports are released later this month, Obama will still have more cash on hand than Romney, and the FEC reports will show Obama’s campaign out-spent Romney’s campaign in June, just as they’ve outspent Romney every month since February.

Comments

Obama’s real problem isn’t the flagging enthusiasm of Jewish and Wall Street donors for underwriting their own vilification, or even the lack of excitement among younger donors and untraceable cash donors (who he has again deliberately enabled to evade security so they can donate illegally).

It’s his burn rate. That money Obama spent in February in outspending the primary-challenged Romney wasn’t on television ads. It was overhead. The built-in spending for salaries and rents is ridiculous.

He runs his campaign like he runs his Administration: as if money were no object. Only it doesn’t help fund a campaign when Harry Reid refuses to pass a budget, keeping a thick veil of secrecy over the actual spending going on. You still have to raise the money and you still have to pay all the bills.

The burn rate is doing to Obama’s campaign what his Administration is doing to America. They can’t stop because they don’t know any other way. In 2008, Obama and useless losers like Axelrod and Plouffe rode the wave of “hope ‘n’ change” and Obama’s ethereal image as an unknown reformer to easy victory. They won in spite of themselves, not because of a genius campaign.

They don’t know any other way.

Anamika

…expects us to believe that there are no ”wealthy people lining up” for Obama!

What Plouffe suggested, was that a substantially higher percentage of Romney money comes from “a few very wealthy people,” relative to Obama. That was the point. And you seem to deliberately minimize it.

http://qwertyaltofuori.blogspot.com Red

Yay Anamika! I’m so glad you’re here to explain what we all just read. A hitch: the average ‘Joe’ isn’t lining up for $40,000/plate Obama dinners now is he? Both contenders have wealthy donors. Big deal so what.

Lemme ‘splain the story to you: Obama spends money like it comes from a board game. Romney spends smarter with less. And if Plouffe wants to accuse anyone of ‘buying the white house’ then all he has to do is remember how his crew got there in the first place.

You’re welcome.

scarymatt

For fun, let’s assume you’re correct, that there are a few very wealthy people funding Romney. Given the low limits on campaign donations, Plouffe is either abusing the term “a few” or “very wealthy.”

As already mentioned, we know that there are at least “a few very wealthy” Obama donors.

Most of that $40,000 goes to the DNC, an individual can only give $2500 each to the candidate primary and election campaigns. $30,800 to the DNC with the rest divided (usually state committees) among other organizations. There was some heartburn here in Georgia because Obamsky held a fundraiser in Atlanta wherein no of the proceeds went to the Georgia state committee. One might suspect that Georgia has already been written off.

In 2008, Obama and useless losers like Axelrod and Plouffe rode the
wave of “hope ‘n’ change” and Obama’s ethereal image as an unknown
reformer to easy victory. They won in spite of themselves, not because
of a genius campaign.

They don’t know any other way.

So, inspite of all these advantages your side has this time around: if Obama wins again, would you concede that his campaign is genius?

Nope. I didn’t think so. You will find new excuses. You are blinded by your partisanship.

scarymatt

If the original win wasn’t evidence of genius, why would another win be evidence?

Please stop being so obviously stupid. Clever trolls are a lot more fun than dumb ones.

Actually, I would argue that the 2008 campaign was pretty smart in that they stayed away from one of Obama’s great weaknesses: details. So far, his 2012 campaign has been recycled class warfare. I suppose you could argue (to paraphrase Picasso) that genius campaigns recycle.

Anamika

You are the one trolling in this instance, with your obviously stupid remark.

scarymatt

Awesome.

“I know you are but what am I?”

Scary Liberal

Why do conservatives automatically fall into a condescending tone when confronted?